Appeal 6003293

The appeal is dismissed.

The main issue is the effect of the development on the living conditions of the occupiers of [address] (No.25A), with particular regard to outlook and the availability of daylight and sunlight.

The appeal relates to a two-storey end of terrace dwelling located on the northern side of [address] within an established residential area. An attached single-storey garage is positioned along the western elevation of the dwelling, adjacent to the boundary with the neighbouring property, No.25A.

No. 25A lies to the north-west of the appeal site and is set further back from the highway behind the appeal dwelling. As a result of this arrangement, the flank elevation of the appeal dwelling projects across part of the front elevation of No. 25A. Outlook from a number of windows within this elevation, including the ground and first-floor bay windows serving habitable rooms, is in part and to a notable degree, towards the flank elevation of the appeal dwelling and the existing single-storey garage.

The proposal would involve the demolition of the existing garage and its replacement with a two-storey side extension. The extension would be set back marginally from the front elevation of the appeal dwelling and would extend along the full depth of the existing side elevation, whilst maintaining an approximate separation of around 1 metre from the shared boundary with No.25A. The extension would incorporate a hipped roof form with a ridge height marginally lower than that of the main dwelling.

The proposal would introduce a substantial two-storey flank wall close to the front elevation windows of No. 25A. Due to its siting, scale and mass, the extension would be clearly visible from these windows, including the two habitable room bay windows, where it would appear as a prominent and visually dominant feature.

At present, the single-storey garage and spacing between the buildings provide a degree of openness between the properties, allowing views from the habitable room bay windows of No. 25A across the side of the appeal property and towards the wider street scene. The proposal would replace this lower element with two-storey built form, occupying much of the existing outlook and introducing a taller and more continuous structure in proximity. This would materially alter the relationship between the buildings and give rise to a pronounced sense of enclosure when viewed from these habitable rooms.

While some outlook towards the street scene would remain available from the bay windows and some separation would remain to the shared boundary, the proposed extension would nevertheless occupy a substantial portion of the immediate outlook from these windows. As such, these factors would do little to mitigate the perception of increased bulk and mass or the resulting sense of enclosure experienced from these habitable rooms.

Having regard to the orientation of the properties and the position of neighbouring habitable room windows, the proposal, by reason of its siting and scale, would be likely to reduce the sunlight and daylight reaching these rooms, particularly during the morning when the sun travels from the east and south-east and during the winter months when the sun is lower in the sky.

Accordingly, I conclude that the proposal would harm the living conditions of the occupiers of No. 25A, with particular regard to outlook and availability of daylight and sunlight. The proposal would therefore conflict with Policies LP26 and LP30 of the Redbridge Local Plan 2015–2030 (2018), which amongst other matters, require development to avoid adverse impacts upon the amenity of neighbouring occupiers including in respect of outlook and daylight/sunlight. For the same reasons the proposal would also be contrary to the guidance contained within the Council’s Housing Design Supplementary Planning Document (2019).

The proposal, which includes the use of matching materials, would not harm the character and appearance of the host dwelling or the surrounding area, nor would it result in any loss of privacy for neighbouring occupiers. However, the absence of harm and compliance with relevant development plan policies are neutral matters in the planning balance and do not weigh in favour of the appeal proposal.

While the appellant refers to the proposal being in keeping with similar extensions and relationships between buildings within the surrounding area, the evidence does not demonstrate that such examples share the same relationship, window orientation or separation distances as those present between the appeal dwelling and No.25A. As such, they cannot be relied upon as directly comparable precedents. Each proposal must be assessed on its own merits, and in this case, it is the siting and proximity of the proposal to the front elevation habitable windows of No. [address] to the identified harm.

Achieving sustainable development and the efficient use of land are well-established planning objectives. However, these objectives do not override the importance of avoiding adverse impacts upon neighbouring occupiers. In this case, the identified harm significantly outweighs the limited benefits put forward by the appellant.

For the reasons given above, the development conflicts with the development plan taken as a whole and there are no material considerations of sufficient weight to indicate that the proposed development should be determined otherwise than in accordance with it. The appeal should therefore be dismissed.